Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2010-10/Phrasebook CFI

Independence of phrasebooks

Surely it should be required that the phrasebooks be independent of one another?​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Added. -- Prince Kassad 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

To check my understanding: the following two phrasebooks are not independent, right?

• Romanian made nice & easy! by Staff of Research Education Association
• German Made Nice & Easy by Staff of Research Education Association

--Dan Polansky 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, these two books are not considered independent for attestation purposes. -- Prince Kassad 08:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

consonance of phrasebooks

[Moved from the BP:]

Seems like an excellent initial criterion. Do the different phrasebooks have to use absolutely identical wording? DCDuring TALK 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

[...end of what was moved from the BP.]

The sentence itself should be the same. Of course, it's also OK, for example, if a phrasebook has the entry "where is the..." and then a list with example words such as "hotel, airport, store, beach, city center", this would count for attestation of "where is the beach", as well as the other possible combinations. -- Prince Kassad 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Examples of passing phrases

I would like to see seven example phrases that meet the proposed regulation. Before we commit the regulation to CFI, let us see what it actually does. --Dan Polansky 18:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, the following phrases would meet the new CFI:

• where is the airport - [1][2][3]
• I need a taxi - [4][5][6]
• I love you
• what does this mean
• I don't know
• what is your name
• how much is it

-- Prince Kassad 19:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Where would this be documented? Within the entry? On the citations page? On the talk-page? —Ruakh_TALK 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it should be on the citations pages, similar to how we cite normal terms. -- Prince Kassad

Well, it's just a bit weird. Citations pages are part of our "content": they help demonstrate that a word meets the CFI, yes, but they're also meaningful to readers, and many of our entries link to their citations pages. If I were hosting a Wiktionary mirror, it would include citations pages. But a list of other random phrasebooks that include a phrase? Why should our readers give a darn? —Ruakh_TALK 20:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of our citations pages are not much better, honestly... -- Prince Kassad 20:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps in a =References= sectionin the entry? Or perhaps in a <!--comment--> in the entry? I really don't like either idea, frankly, but am throwing them out there to see whether others do.​—msh210℠ (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now can you post the hyperlinks to the phrasebooks that would make the seven phrases included? I mean just the least laborious way of entering hyperlinks, like this: [7]. That would be 21 = 7 * 3 hyperlinks. --Dan Polansky 06:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I have added hyperlinks to the first two items above. --Dan Polansky 07:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Search strategy I have used: search for the phrase in Google books. For higher specificity of the search, add the keywords "phrase" and "phrasebook", thus getting three searches: (a) <phrase>, (b) <phrase> "phrase", (c) <phrase> "phrasebook". --Dan Polansky 07:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

For lovers and haters of "where is a hotel":

• where is a hotel - [8][9][10][11]

--Dan Polansky 07:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Do all translations need to be citable?

If this vote passes, does it mean that every translation must appear in three phrasebooks, or only that the English head page must appear in three phrasebooks? --Yair rand (talk) 04:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT the three-phrasebooks criterion is aimed at satisfying not attestability but a sort of idiomaticity. (Attestability may be required independent of the criterion being voted on here. Note that the criterion being voted on here is to appear in the "Idiomaticity" section of WT:CFI. AFAICT and IMO we can still RFV phrasebook entries, even if this vote passes, and require cites to be using the term (not mentioning it as phrasebooks do).) IMO once phrasebook-level idiomaticity is established for the English phrase (by its being in other phrasebooks), that's sufficient to allow translations in the English entry. (The translations' entries of course will need to meet the criterion in theirown right.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 05:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don’t think there are very many phrasebooks available for this criterion in most languages. For languages like Navajo and Ojibwe, there are no phrasebooks that I know of. I’ve seen phrasebooks for German, Russian, and so on, and they are often unreliable and contain lots of errors, and in many cases are very outdated for use in languages such as Russian. There might be some good phrasebooks around for perhaps ten or so languages, but not for the thousands of others. —Stephen (Talk) 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The translations' entries of course will need to meet the criterion in theirown right.", that really doesn't make sense to me. If the English phrase has been shown to be worthy of inclusion in the phrasebook, than we should allow entries for all the translations possible. --Yair rand (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple ways to translate a phrase into another language. Do you want to allow any and all of them? -- Prince Kassad 22:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No, just the phrase which would be the most natural way to say it, as we've been doing until now. --Yair rand (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "If the English phrase has been shown to be worthy of inclusion in the phrasebook, than we should allow entries for all the translations": That people are likely to (or should) say something in America does not mean that people are likely to (or should) say a translation in Wherever. Nor vice versa.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Logically, translations listed in entries only need to be 'attestable' if they exist. If they're red links, there's no problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Location of phrasebook attestations

Picking on the question from above: "Where would this be documented? Within the entry? On the citations page? On the talk-page? —RuakhTALK 19:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)"

This should IMHO not be in the Citations namespace, as the occurrences in phrasebooks are really mentions rather than uses. Placing the phrasebooks as references to the references section of the entry seems the best way I can think of right now. Talk page would also be okay; after all, this proposed criterion gives up on the search for uses of the phrase, going instead by what other printed works do, which contrasts with our treatment of dictionaries as non-sources or non-references. --Dan Polansky 07:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Not nonreferences, right? Many an entry lists a dictionary or similar work s.v. =References=.​—msh210℠ (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you are right. I was thinking of treating dictionaries as non-references for definitions, but they are treated as references for etymologies. They may be sometimes treated as references even for definitions. --Dan Polansky 07:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Seeking to clarify before I cast a vote either way: Does "[...]the phrase must appear as an entry in at least three independent, durably archived phrasebooks, or otherwise qualify for inclusion as an entry" apply to English head phrases only, or all of their translations as well? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Any that there's an entry for (but not necessarily any that appears in a translation table). (At least that's how I read it.)​—msh210℠ (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

... so as long as the translation isn't defined in an entry of its own, it doesn't have to follow these rules? — lexicógrafa | háblame — 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That's msh210's opinion, yes; and one of Mglovesfun's comments above suggests that he agrees. —Ruakh_TALK 21:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)